Independent British Nationalist

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

There's quite a steady stream of news this week about immigration and asylum, so I thought I would write a little something about it that is bound to get myself labelled as a bigoted, heartless, racist, vile and nasty person.

Yet seeing as I don't particularly care what names I get called - and in fact think it can be half the fun these days to wind up the self appointed self-righteous - I shall carry on somehow from behind the tears that have rolled down my cheeks from all those insults and labels in the past.

In the news lately European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has warned Britain that it cannot (and should not) hinder the free movement of people within the EU (that was just days prior to landing Britain with a £1.7 Billion bill for being a member of the EU!).

Then there have then been the discussions about Italy stopping patrolling and rescuing boats of the coast of Lampedusa and what should be done about it.

This is an island that originally hosted a small population of around 6000 Italians - who had re-inhabited the island after it once being left uninhabited due to the locals being snatched and slaved by Barbary pirates (otherwise known as Muslim pirates from Africa and Arab lands).

However, it has seen a population of 56,000 Africans arrive in the year 2011 alone, never mind the further scores of thousands still lingering there from previous years and in recent years. It would seem from the figures that Lampedusa is no longer an Italian populated island and only 'Italian' by geographical legality.

The question being asked is - what should be done to deal with this?

The answer being floated around at the moment (pardon the pun), even at high levels, is to actually start letting these people drown as a deterrent and as a signal that it is not a good idea to set off on these boats in the first place because they are not going to keep getting rescued. Harsh and sad, I know - but perhaps a bit of common sense in my opinion.

Of course, much outcry has occurred. But nothing much is said about the criminal gangs that facilitate this stream of people that are leading many of them to death in the sea and deserts. Nothing much is said about the cruelty and loss of lives that the continued acceptance of this situation brings.

Nothing is said of the debts they owe to the traffickers when they get here, nothing is said of the prostitution, slave labour, squalid living conditions or all manners of things that are wrong with this picture, not to mention that their continual fleeing does nothing to sort out the problems their fellow countrymen and women will continue to suffer.

No. It seems only those who oppose their presence here in Britain and Europe are the evil ones. The ones who keep facilitating it all are beyond all criticism.

Also in the news has been a visit to Britain by representative from Calais, one Natacha Bouchart, the centre-right UMP mayor.

This is a place where immigrant camps are (once again) overflowing as the occupants take their chances to hide in cars, lorries, caravans, anywhere they can, to make it into Britain. They are getting more out of control and more brazen, even slashing into lorries with knives and trying to storm ferries in great numbers.

Ministers are apparently a bit taken aback at the suggestion that Britain is being held to blame for this! The nerve of the French telling us that the British magnet of black market working, welfare, lack of deportations and so on is responsible for their situation in France! How very dare they?!

Of course, I am being sarcastic.

{I shall now follow with a sarcastic section}

------------------

All this kind of talk is news to me though. Some nasty people have suggested that these immigration camps are like a novel called Camp of the Saints, but the way I have been told to see it is that these people coming are the saints!

As far as I had understood it these people are just selfless souls who simply cannot wait to add to the 'rich mix of diversity' that apparently 'makes this country so great'.

So generous are they that they risk their lives to get here just so that they can grace us with their magical presence. Otherwise, as various MPs such as Ken Clarke have stated over the years, we would simply be lost as a nation - and entirely unable to cope or prosper financially.

Their generosity to help us out has no limits apparently, well, no "upper limits" if one is to paraphrase David Blunkett, who now seems to be changing his tune now it is causing problems in his own neck of the woods (and when it is Pakistanis complaining about Roma).

They are just falling over themselves to get here and help us white people fix our civilisation problems.

They have been said to have been the elixir of this nation - and allegedly always have been throughout our historical ages...whether they be 'black Romans' or random nomadic Islamic tribesmen or Arabic sailors in our ports.

In fact, I had heard that they'd built this nation - but that they simply did not get the recognition for it because of the racist attitudes of those 'previous waves' of white skinned migrants that 'just happened' to 'migrate' here both before and after the thawing of the last Ice Age.

This group has been rather idiotically called the indigenous peoples of Britain by all sorts of vile people - but as everybody born since 1955 knows, there are no such things in Europe. Only non white people can be indigenous to somewhere.

As it has always been like this, with this constant ebb and flow, it would clearly therefore be ridiculous to suggest it ought to be stopped, which of course nasty people have repeatedly tended to suggest throughout the years.

Good job they were never listed to by their representatives in democracy or from the wider government isn't it?!

Don't they realise the wonders it brings? They really need to be shown and educated on how nice these people are and what they have had to suffer in order to help us out, then they would change their prejudiced minds.

Yet despite how nasty, racist and xenophobic all the citizens are here, these 'economic migrants' can still find it in their hearts to forgive us. It really is amazing. See! The settlements in Calais really ARE the camps of the saints!

They know that the label 'economic migration' (when applied to them) actually means the boost they can give to our GDP per capita and GDP per head - so hundreds of thousands of them are out there in Calais and Italy desperately wanting to enrich our world to bring that much needed vibrancy and talent that we are clearly so sorely lacking!

So much do we need them that Labour sent out search parties and spent money on recruitment drives abroad!

So the least we can do is fish these people out of the ramshackle boats they have volunteered (and paid criminals) to get into and duly welcome them with open arms as they bluster through Calais and other ports of entry...Come one, come all!

The good news is that there are going to potentially be around 4 Billion third worlder's just itching with good will to get into the Europe by the end of the century!

Surely by then we will have excelled beyond our wildest dreams and really reached up to the stars! Can you imagine the wonders it will bring? That untapped talent we will gain? What things will be like?

Exciting times are ahead!

------------------------

But this albeit far fetched attitude is what seems to underpin liberal attitudes.

Politicians certainly can't seem to speak of immigration without falling over themselves to say how wonderful it has generally been and how marvellous our country has become because of it, how we cannot manage without it, that our finances would collapse without it.....but that we just need to tinker there and there with the welfare and the rules in order to calm down objections from people who are just not feeling the love yet.

According to Yasmin Alibhai Brown today on Radio 2, to not rescue these people, to turn away economic migrants and asylum seekers (and so on) is an act of genocide.

Yes, you heard that right - to flood this country with an endless supply of desperate Africans and others (which will ultimately entirely replace the hosting population) is NOT genocide...but turning them away IS an act of genocide!

(You can find the interview here for the next four weeks http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04l3nlq) .

Furthermore, she goes on to say that we ought to remember what David Cameron said on some foreign visit or other - which is that if it was not for imperialism and the west, there would not be all of these desperate people and nor would there have been the climate change deemed responsible for much of the world's ills.

You see, for Yasmin, the world's problems are all the fault of white people anyway (which she just widely labels 'the west'), so in her view we'd better just suck it up and do away with ourselves as fast as we possibly can, as it is the least we can do!

What is also astonishing is her blaming 'The West' for international banking...ignoring the fact that it was the Rothschild family of Jews who, during and after the battle of Waterloo, established international finance by the father sending his many sons to become influential in finance in many different European cities, where they proceeded to get very rich indeed by manipulating stock and getting the news to each other before the press and politicians of the day could!

However, I doubt she would really care about that - and the host, one Vanessa Feltz, is not likely to interrupt either - particularly as she would have had to tear herself away from feeling sorrow and sadness at the plight of these people risking their lives to get here and generally questioning of how it differs so much from the Jewish refugees that we once gave shelter to.

Who was on the show to give the counter opinion? Who was interviewed or in the studio to argue our case or the case against allowing emotion to come before logic?

Well, that would be a big fat NOBODY as usual. Once again, the unbiased BBC coming up trumps in their balance and impartiality. (Not that the listeners would ever twig on to this kind of chicanery going on, particularly the emotional fools phoning in outraged about the very idea of not rescuing and taking these people in).

Once again, the liberals manage to turn an act of ultimate evil and chaos into an act of virtue where they can play the good guys, the saviours of the world, the purveyors of humanity and all that is goodness. They think of themselves as the saints who are helping the other future saints in their camps.

They do not ever take their actions to the *ultimate* conclusions, but instead choose to lecture people on how barbaric they are for not helping all these poor and desperate people 'right now'.

It is not hard to do that though, is it? Nobody disagrees that they are sad cases, desperate, have no prospects and all the rest of it......but this is the only argument they can make, because it is emotional over that of being logical.

They don't care for what the ultimate effect their bleeding hearts will have. They are like drug addicts seeking the 'hit' or 'high' of being morally superior to others. But just like other drug addicts, it leads to a sorry state in the end. Only this time is it not their own lives and community they are wrecking - but a whole nation.

Although it deals with West Yorkshire and not South Yorkshire, I doubt there is going to be all that much difference.

There are some images attached to that article which are taken from the West Yorkshire UAF website, which may prove interesting and useful to some of you reading this.

My attention has also been drawn to a recent article from the Hope Not Hate website, penned by Nick Lowles, entitled "Which side are we on?"

This appears to admit that it was known at the time that "grooming" was going on, however, it is not all that clear who he is talking about:

"Whatever one’s theory about what is behind this grooming, it is quite
clear that ignoring the problem will only make things worse. We found
this out, to our cost, in Bradford and Keighley in 2004, when there was a
consensus to dismiss BNP claims of grooming in Keighley as racist
propaganda. The BNP won four council seats and just missed out in
several more.Grooming was occurring in Keighley and everyone there knew it. In
fact, nine Muslim men were sent to prison and as many as 65 young girls
were believed to have been abused."

Is that really an admission that
they knew what was going on - but still decided to "dismiss the claims
as racist propaganda" anyway?

Who was in this "consensus"? Do they mean
groups like theirs, political parties, other 'anti-fascist'
organisations like UAF, or do they just mean the liberal-left and media
in general?

Do they mean that the people of Bradford and Keighley
knew it, but they on the liberal-left "innocently" did not know? Yet if
they did not know, then how could they possibly decide whether it was a
"racist myth" or the truth?

Were they really just taking the word
of West Yorkshire police and Bradford City Council, or was it a
collusion, or even a bit deeper than that? How could there have been a genuine investigation into this only for them to have found "no
evidence" of such a thing going on?

It seems to me that they were
more interested in preventing the BNP gaining ground than discovering
the truth or admitting the truth.

Even now, reading the HNH website, they seem to want to
stage manage the event and steer it away from real scrutiny by trying to
be the good-guys and compassionate about the victims and their
families, calling for heads to roll and so on.

They seem to want to turn
attention to the 'failures' of administration rather than the failures
of their multiracial / multicultural society itself.

They accuse the "far right" of exploiting the issue and suggest that we do not care that our own racial group (in particular our precious young white females) are being gang raped, sodomised, addicted to drugs, threatened to be set alight, beaten and much more.

How sick and twisted are they to really believe that we nationalists (who by definition care deeply for our people and our nation) are just using such issues because we "don't like people who are different" (as one of the comments suggests of us on another blog article there at Hope Not Hate).

It is not us who are seeking to manipulate events. It is them and their desire to limit the damage being done by their multiracial experiments - and to limit the push of the "far right" - who are the only ones who truly oppose their own peoples' abuse and extinction.

In my opinion they really couldn't give a rats ass about the abused, they just want to make sure that we (the folk who do care) cannot use it to expose the failures of their doctrine and thus gain sympathy and support from it.

I am not sure what to make of the article. The message is plain and obvious enough, but I hope that H.Millard is appreciative of the notion that his article will only tend to convince the already committed.
.
The great majority of people out there in Britain today are not going to think of themselves as "breeding" within a "natural part of cosmic evolution".......who need to, and I quote, help our race "teem like maggots on garbage" in order to provide the "fleshy material for nature to work with" in the future.
.
Of course, I selected a particularly vivid set of descriptions for the purposes of making my point - but talk of 'the cosmos' and to generally talk to people in society about humans "breeding", is just not going to go down that well, even when putting the teeming maggots aside.
.
I just don't believe that people think that way, or in such terms - and I suspect it would sound pretty unpleasant if it was framed to them in this kind of manner.
.
It makes perfect sense that we need more of ourselves to survive, particularly in the present circumstances where we find our habitat increasingly dominated by others. In fact it would be pretty ludicrous to suggest that 'white nationalists' and wider white society need to do anything otherwise than (at least) go past the point of self replacement of our numbers.
.
The article is quite orientated around the basics of nature, but what is it that is driving down the birthrates and severely postponing the raising of children?
.
It is all fine and well telling the already racially aware and committed that we need more children in our ranks, but what is happening to our own nature (or circumstances) that has seen vast swathes of Europe enter into such dire population decline?
.
If we are to talk about things in such animal-like terms, I could suggest, for example, that the subconscious psychological impact of having so many cuckoos in our nest, or to put it another way, having our territory invaded with a competing species (who are often more assertive and brutal in their behaviour) has an effect of the retraction of our own species.
.
Whether this is due to a sense that we may feel we do not have a future in our large cities and towns any more, whether it is due to the lack of suitable partners via these demographic trends, or whether it is due to conditions in parts of the country which are transformed to such a degree where people do not feel inclined to bring up a new generation, I am not sure.
.
All I am suggesting is that it may have an impact, even when these people are not even aware of what is driving these choices. But of course, there are many things which have an impact on how things are today.
.
For example, adulthood has, for many, been delayed. Over the last five decades alone, we have gone from a situation where people generally moved out of their home at 17 or 18, were often married and in a place of their own by the time they were 22, and were having children as part of a close unit by the time they were 24. Today, the average first time house buyer is late 30's and early 40's!

The generation 40 years ago or more were often said to be able to move out of one job and go straight into another. No longer is this the case. People feel they have no job security, and we now see things emerging like 'zero-hour-contracts', not to mention the competition for the most menial of jobs with a never ending supply of foreigners (and the aforementioned cuckoos that have embedded themselves in our nests for quite some time now). For many in such situations, the thought of having children may not be all that attractive.
.
When it comes to housing, wages are low whilst the cost of living is quite high, rent is high, particularly in the cities...where immigration again is driving up the prices and the age at which people can move out of their parents' home, or eventually buy their own home that is suitable for raising a family.
.
I remember one documentary about the state of Britain today which included a young couple who were scraping an existence together and were living in such a small flat that they had to store their vacuum cleaner and other items in the boot of their car at night because they hadn't the space to make up the beds (or whatever).
.
When the question of children was put to this couple, they said they would love to have some children, but there is no chance of them having any where they were living - and that the waiting lists for suitable council places were sky high, even if they were eligible for one, which they probably weren't, seeing as they were doing everything 'right'.
.
So there you had a decent young couple who wanted to have children, but felt trapped in a situation where it was not deemed feasible. They felt they could not afford it, or raise a family in such cramped conditions. You could probably times that couple by many thousands. The woman involved may suddenly find herself in her mid to late 30s and rushing to have just the one child whilst she still can. This is how it seems to go now for many. Not all, but many.
.
But here is the thing, the narrative for generations has largely been to "be responsible" like that. The message has been....."go to school, go to college, go to university if you can, then when you have that completed and have a decent job, THEN you find somebody and start a family if you want one". Generally, it was implied that if you cannot afford children, then you ideally should not have them.
.
For women, having children has even sometimes been presented as a ball and chain that could interfere with their "career" and prospects in the future. Where once having children in their late teens and early twenties was the normality and somewhat expected, now, for women, having children at that age could allegedly "ruin their lives", and they are told that they ought to wait until they are 'established' and so on, before getting together with somebody that way.
.
Fatherhood and marriage has been attacked to the point where men seem to feel they have little role to play. The justice system has been deemed to be in favour of women for a long time, whilst feminism has bred a generation of women who want it all and think they can have it all without a man being around at all.
.
'Sisters' are apparently 'doing it for themselves'. So where do men fit in? What kind of effect is this role denigration having in wider terms of men even desiring fatherhood and committing oneself to a woman in the first place? (Which is often seen as a financially risky business for the male).
.
Feminism and hedonism has probably affected both men and women too, where, thanks to the generally delayed adulthood and independence, they are part of the peter-pan generation who do not want to grow up and are not yet feeling 'ready' to have children, despite the window of opportunity closing upon them fast.
.
Many people I know are in their 30s and still cannot drive. They are largely single or forever coupled with short-term relationships, when not playing computer console games and enjoying their 'freedom' with 'no ties'.
.
It is now often in their forties when they are being responsible and settling down. This is just the life they have known and grown up around, it has not necessarily been a concious choice. They are more the victims of a particularly constructed society.To some extent, I feel I am a victim of it myself, realising certain things a decade too late.
.
There are of course many who buck the trends. Whilst relationships seem to fail more often and more easily than previous generations, there are still people out there in their late teens and early twenties having children, there are still people 'making do and mend' and having children anyway, there are plenty of 'irresponsible' people having children that they did not even want to have. There are many in solid relationships and ahead of the curve when compared to the peter pan victims.
.
But for those who are doing things well, again, they are hit by extortionate child care, whilst their children are effectively raised by the state and by strangers.
.
So as to keep up payments, keeping their jobs secure and such, they can often be found working full time to pay for somebody else to be doing all this! Of course, it is often utter madness - like we are all trapped into the mad cycles that have been constructed for us.
.
For the Pakistanis, the Somalis, the Roma, and so on....they are not binding themselves so much to the same notions, the same unwritten rules. Their culture remains more patriarchal, the women and men have roles expected of them. They enjoy large families and are irresponsible enough to not care who feeds them and houses them, as they know they can generally rely upon the state, upon the wider society, upon whites, who ironically feel unable to have children of their own!
.
If H.Millard wants the white race, European demographics, or whatever, to surge......then I am afraid that telling them to 'breed' is not enough. Nor will they really do it these days for 'their race'. I think it has to be shown as encouragement for other reasons (that just happen to have this benefit as a consequence without them even knowing it). It needs to become expected of them again.
.
Maybe there was once great pride people in having large families. Perhaps it was sometimes a status thing in previous centuries. Now, in the media like the Daily Mail, having large families is just seen as a "burden" on the country and the "welfare state". It can be sneered at, something 'not to do', or whatever. My brother has three lovely children, but to be honest, they are often run ragged by it. Having more children to "their full capacity" would not really compute with them. It can be rewarding, but tiring.
.
As for the white race itself, the narrative now has it that we are to blame for everything. We are allegedly to be ashamed of our past, ashamed of our present and that we are some kind of plague upon the wider world - which we have allegedly robbed, raped and pillaged.
.
We are implied to be greedy, racist, useless ("immigrants work harder/are smarter/etc) - and that our dominant numbers in jobs and in wider society is some sort of a problem that needs to be solved with the replacement by others!
.
What wider subconscious message is that sending out? It would hardly be a message that would help us have pride and enthusiasm to expand our numbers!
.
I think all these kinds of things are having an impact on how we see ourselves and thus what our fertility rate is.
.
Without the conditions in place to change all these current trends in society, without the imposition of a different discourse within the population, without incentives and a sense of security being there for people, etc, I think it is going to be an uphill slog to even sustain replacement level fertility rates, never mind "breed to our capacity".
.
Maybe in the future, the Western Spring imbibed communities could have the ingredients there to bolster a more sustainable fertility rate, with full knowledge of what they are doing and why it should be done.
.
As for the rest of the country, those 'teeming maggots' of bulk material, I think Mr Millard has his work cut out if he seeks to get their appreciation to what he is saying (and requesting) of them. Particularly so if nationalists go out there and describe the situation in the way written for the article.

.

I am not suggesting the article is wrong. I do not think it is wrong. It is more the disconnect between the fully race-aware white nationalist and the way the world is actually working that troubles me, talking about things in such a way which is not likely to ever allow the contents to come to any actual fruition.

.

There are many occasions where we nationalists get suckered into our own little world and become removed from the rest of society. For me, this appeared to be another one of them.

.

Perhaps the intention was not aimed for wider consumption, which is fair enough - but even so, if others head off and talk of breeding, the cosmos, the blunt facts of organisms and biologies, I doubt they would get very far in encouraging people to have children.

Friday, 16 May 2014

Many nationalists ought to be aware by now of a fairly new venture for British Nationalism, called Western Spring.

This is an exciting new venture that aims to take a comprehensive and radically new approach to British Nationalism in comparison to that of party politics.

If one is not familiar with the group, more information can be found here: Western Spring

Continuing with this article requires the reader to be aware of the Western Spring programme, to have read the explanations provided on the website and to have come to appreciate the "prerequisites" that have been published so far. If this is not done and understood, the following article may not make much sense.

My third meeting with fellow travellers within this group brought up a collection of ideas and observations about what is taking place with the project in our locality, or in some of our cases, not taking place.

Focus was particularly cast upon the bottleneck that throttles a more speedy uptake to the programme being put forward, but it also diversified into wider matters relating to what kind of content and tools we may need to provide in order to explain ourselves.

This is in relation to both existing nationalists as well as those around us who are not particularly nationalistic, but who may listen to what we have to put forward to them.

It is some of those subjects which I would like to put forward here in this article.

Different people may have different experiences and different opinions over the following matters, but the idea here is to open up different perspectives people have about the proposals and to see how they can be shaped to fit together as well as made to fit inside of the existing parameters that Western Spring have already (rather meticulously) established.

Given that so much thought and consideration has been behind the birth of Western Spring, not only in terms of operation but in relation to the real way in which the world operates, I am naturally going to be cautious of anyone endangering this quite particular goal with observations and pressures that may inadvertently send things off on a tangent.

I can only express how I see it - and hope that others can do the same in order to see where we have differences and similarities.

Recruitment was one of the main themes of the meeting. For any organisation to grow, it is obvious that it requires supporters and financing. Although the Western Spring project is indeed growing, it was explained how we were currently at the stage of generating a lot of interest and activity, but still not being large enough in terms of active participants to be able to tip things onto the next level.

This is a temporary state that is a natural part of establishing any organisation or any new business. At some point, with enough activity and numbers, I believe it will tend to snowball and pick up speed as it develops.

In light of this, it is naturally expected of people to recruit anybody they know who may be sympathetic to nationalism and who may sign up to the venture, come to the meetings or otherwise get involved.

However, it became obvious to me that all of us present in the room that evening had a common theme when it came to achieving this target.....that 'new people' (who we would tend categorise under the bracket of 'relatives and friends') are not always so easy to find.

I am pretty sure that the originator of Western Spring would have been dismayed by this lack of ability on our part, for it is bound to be frustrating when he is trying to establish this venture and move onwards to the next stages and yet the grouping was not any larger.

Yet the theme was pretty consistent in the room, and indicated to me that what should be (in theory, on paper) easy to do, could in fact be quite hard.

Naturally, I can only speak for myself here and my own observations about myself and nationalists in general, but by our very nature I think we are often "apart from the pack".

We are independent thinkers who have thought extremely long and hard about why Western Spring is necessary, why we are supportive of British Nationalism, and why we have chosen to support the plans being put forward.

We therefore tend to not be of the "mainstream" opinions and standpoints when it comes to all sorts of subjects, particularly that of race, nation, morality, patriarchy, meritocracy, feminism, homosexuality, financial awareness, awareness of the power of the media and the power of those groups who we suggest control it.

This unfortunately leads us to be quite insular, quite removed and distant from the mainstream society we have come to detest - and does not often present us with the ability or opportunities to speak our minds openly to wider circles of friends, or even closer friends, in case we either lose their friendship or become such a one track minded set of individuals that it puts a strain on our family ties and friendships.

I had to admit that out of all my close family and friends, I could hardly think of one person who would be so racially aware and so able to cope with the concepts of Western Spring, that I could recruit them into it or suggest they attend the next meeting.

As I explained during the meeting, it does not necessarily mean that they are against what we are saying - it is more a case that we have spent many years arriving at our conclusions and opinions, whilst they have hardly given it much thought at all - and are still very distant to us when it comes to grasping the need for such a programme and why it has to be done in the way being suggested.

In addition, we may all meet people who are racially aware - but who have not fully formulated what it is they think, never mind properly understood the issues being raised.

They are the sort who may instinctively know that something is going very wrong, they instinctively know who 'their own' people are and have an affiliation and preference to them - but who tend to go about their thinking in completely the wrong way. A way that is perhaps crude, unhelpful, mixed with nonsense, double standards or short sightedness wrapped up in the usual media driven narratives.

Ironically, despite the howls of our opposition, British Nationalists do tend to remove these kinds of notions from people - not encourage them!

In theory, these people I describe may be good candidates to become attuned to British Nationalism in the future - but who are at this stage nowhere near ready for it. They need to be coached along much further yet before they are "in tune" to what is happening, never mind the rationale behind a comprehensive programme aimed at rectifying it.

If individual members of the Western Spring project do not know anybody suitable, then they do not know anybody suitable. They can only then resort to tapping on their neighbours door, canvassing the passing public, issuing leaflets and so on in a way that is more familiar to political party activity than the Western Spring activity. (This also relates to something else which I will bring up later).

As far as I understand it, Western Spring does not seek this kind of everyday publicity as such; and nor would I think it would become possible for existing members to vouch for friends of friends, and friends of theirs, and so on.

Growing a base of such people therefore may risk destroying the venture prematurely, before solid work is built in terms of enclaves. I think that doing such publicity activities could risk destroying a crucial
element of stealth and also impose those complications relating to
properly vetting people.

It is for this reason that I think it is still premature to try and coax
the wider public (and these kinds of individuals) into the movement.

So, what could be the alternative to this? Either fortunately or unfortunately, depending on the viewpoint, I think we may need more reliance upon the spadework already done over the last 20 years or more by more seasoned and connected nationalists.

As has been explained at Western Spring many times, nationalism through the party political route has been an abject failure. Much regret exists about all this time and effort that appears to have been wasted over the last 40 years, not to mention the churn of nationalists that have walked in and back out of the doors of many different parties, many of which who have returned to mainstream life in either demoralisation, disgust, or sense of futility.

However, I hope that all such previous spadework has not been in vain. I firmly believe that it is existing nationalists and "past" nationalists who we need to win over first.

People who were perhaps once "super activists" or regional organisers, people with connections to those who are nationalists or who were nationalists, and who could be interested in this exciting new programme.

People within the National Front organisation, Heritage and Destiny, British Democratic Party, people who were once county councillors for the BNP, people such as Michael Walker from 'The Scorpion' magazine who gave thisexcellent talk at the 2008 American Renaissance, and so on.

Where are all these people now? They may well have given up on the futility of nationalist politics, but they are going to be "switched on" to the rationale of a programme like Western Spring and could potentially be convinced to take part in it and bring people they know into it.

When it comes to the wider populace, I suspect it may be a case of "build it, and they will come".

This leads me to another issue relating to the recruitment, or idea, of tapping the doors of our friends, family, neighbours and folk in our immediate areas.

During the previous meeting I attended, it seemed that this was the objective (in order to start establishing the racial enclaves that are part of the overall Western Spring programme).

Again, I have some reservations about the feasibility of this thinking, should this indeed be the proposed case.

Primarily, this is because of the problems already outlined above. In addition, I think it is not always wise or feasible in the long term to try and establish random little groups in this way. Again, I can only speak for myself - but I shall provide an explanation of my view on this.

My own town is largely Pakistani and Bangladeshi, with a slowly increasing population of Eastern Europeans and Blacks. There are a few mixed population wards to the town, but there are also parts which are almost exclusively "ethnic minority".

My own immediate vicinity is still majority white, but it is slowly becoming "mixed" - whilst the previous "mixed" areas are becoming almost exclusively "ethnic minority".

On this basis (of what is to come), combined with the aforementioned problems of recruiting 'new' people, I do not see the point of trying to recruit neighbours into co-opting into establishing some kind of enclave in such towns facing such situations.

So again, what would be the alternative to this?

I think that the alternative, if not already being done so, is to strategically identify specific target areas and to encourage those who are able (and who may have the least to lose) to relocate.

I appreciate that is not an easy task, or a simple ask to make of people, particularly if there are no target areas close to their current arrangements, families, jobs and so on.

However, I do think it may be much more easier to collect the 'already aware' people I mentioned earlier and construct something in a targeted locality (buying up any houses or renting houses in an area that are suitable and come up for sale or rent) - than it would be to see more weaker (and half hearted) mini groups that try and expand through neighbours, taking part in pushing out objectionable people from the street and so on.

This again leads me on to another aspect of recruitment and enclave building.

As I tried to explain in the meeting I attended, I think it is important to give people a vision of how things would be, how it would work, and, for the more political minded, what kinds of policies and positions we would support and try and get going in our enclaves.

I think that only the more extremely committed would physically move to take part in this without having any further incentives to do so. People are selfish this way, and I think it is understandable for people to be so these days, to sit back and just enjoy what remains of our time as a civilisation and as a human being whilst we can.

So, what could be offered?

Of course, there are the concepts of a safer society, a society that should be free of many of the ills that wreak havoc on many housing estate or community.

There are the concepts of there being a better education for their children (once we get footholds in the schooling system), workmen/tradesmen who are not going to be ripping off their fellow nationalists, maybe help with employment and so on.

In addition to this, there may be people who are interested in making money out of this programme. Our natural instinct as nationalists may be to be greatly against this, however, I am coming to take a different view.

There may be more affluent people out there who are nationalists who do not want to relocate to a different area, but who still want to help facilitate those who may. Would they be in a position to buy property in order to be "landlords" whilst the settlements are being built up?

With the way savings, interest rates and pensions etc are going at the moment (and for the foreseeable future), many people may be interested in getting a better interest on their finances/savings by "diversifying their portfolio" and pulling in a regular rent instead of the misery sums provided by the banks.

Would people be prepared to open shops and create a living for themselves?

Have they experience as a greengrocer, newsagent, or hardware store, coffee shops, cake makers etc? Would they be willing to take a chance at setting something up in a new location, or even if they have no experience, trying their hand at something for a change anyway?

This may play into the "Judo" principle that has been mentioned in Western Spring. For example, what grants, funds, advisory units, and so on, are available to set up businesses like this? Should we not be figuring out how to use all these devices that are out there to our advantage and to help pull people in?

The same goes for house building, and whatever else, which may tie into physically building some parts of planned enclaves as well as provide employment to "our own" in the process. Would people be prepared to work some hours "free" for the cause whilst also being paid for 7 hours of an 8 hour working day? Can we pull in resources from nationalistically inclined materials suppliers?

People may be studying business management, media film editing and production, etc. How can they use these skills towards the cause? The same goes for engineers, plumbers, bricklayers, electricians, teachers, nursery nurses and so on. People may be rubbish at "recruitment", like me, but that does not mean to say other things are not viable from them.

It may all be fantastical, but I hope I convey the vast range of things that could be going on in the future. Things that provide some security, some reason to move, some financial reward too, in some cases, for doing so.

The way I see it, although the founders of Western Spring may not like to see it this way, is that many people may decide on their own participation levels. If they can do any of the above, that is great. If they cannot, then surely a relocation to an enclave area is enough in itself to still be part of building it?

By this, I mean using the services, the shops, supporting the school governors who are 'our people', and so on...all by default of just living their otherwise normal lives. Having something that is as easy as breathing, where participation is just 'normal life' (and not a concerted effort) might be important to bolster those numbers in the future.

Returning to recruitment for a moment then, I think it would be good to have a succinct A5 sized outline of the programme that can be learnt by existing members in order to better explain themselves, and it, to new people.

If we draw some attention off wider people for that, a further layer of what it is about and how it could work (such as the kinds of things I mention above, and the attractions an area like that would provide) is likely to be required too.

This is because like "party policies", people may want to know where we stand, what exactly we are working towards for these societies in a wider sense, how they will become superior to the collapsing values around us - and how they will actually work if we gain some control, or how they would work if we do not and if they are under pressure!

If there are too many unknowns, people may not want to make a leap of faith. Many die hard nationalists will struggle to solidly commit themselves in real terms (including myself) - never mind those "friends of friends" that were described earlier.

However, these works must not be so detailed as to risk "hanging ourselves" on it in terms of throwing nit-picking obstacles in the path of nationalists (who may violently disagree on political solutions or social/moral positions).

Focus has to be maintained on the task at hand, not fall out over slight policy differences that we cannot control anyway until we have influence to do so!

If at all possible, I think it would also be handy, as part of this, to have a myth-buster on the site which counteracts all the usual narratives that we face, whether from fellow nationalists or the brainwashed wider public.

For example, when we listen into any radio debate these days on anything controversial, we are treated to the same parroted lines as though they are being repeated from a massive blackboard:-

"We are a nation of immigrants anyway, so why should we care?!"

"Immigrants pay more in taxes than they do take out"

"We need immigrants to pay our pensions"

"The NHS would collapse if there were no immigrant origin doctors, nurses and cleaning staff",

"This objection is all about ignorance, fear, bigotry, hate"

And so on.

A handy rebuffing of all these kinds of narratives may provide a great service to all nationalists as well as be part of the explanation of how our planned society would cope without all these wonderful benefits of diversity!

The last part is the tricky aspect of the movement itself. I tried to raise this issue at the recent Western Spring meeting in my area, but perhaps it was good that it was slightly misconstrued!.

I tend to say things as I see them, so I hope I did not cause offence with Max Musson over what may have sounded to be allegations or insinuations.

This tricky part is that of transparency and finances.

There is no polite way to say this, but I think people are naturally going to be suspicious of organisations that encourage fairly substantial monthly payments without having any idea whatsoever of what has been raised, how many are "in" the movement, what it has been spent on, or where else it may be going.

Personally I have good faith and trust at this time, however, I sought to bring it up because not everybody is so trusting and because finances are a well known and well worn tool of sowing distrust and discord within a movement.

How to bridge the gap between what has to be a stealth organisation and that of having some transparency of accounts and accrued assets, I do not know. What I do know is that people will not be prepared to throw money into what is a 'black hole' forever.

The usual insinuations will appear - that the money is a "Ponzi scheme" to milk good intentioned nationalists, that it is being trousered ready for them and their family to move elsewhere to escape what is coming, that people are getting rich from it whilst also being genuine, such as saying that we have 3,000 subscribers when in reality there are 4,000.

I am happy to continue contributing for now (and for the rest of the year). I have faith in the project and those tied to it.

That being said, as many may know, I am extremely worn out with nationalism as a whole at the moment. I am not presently in the mind frame to throw myself into recruitment drives, to move house to an enclave, or whatever else. I'm not saying I won't do these things, but I personally feel like I need a break from it for a while, as well as from the computer in general.

I do not want to let the side down or be a demoraliser by leaving, so I certainly feel obliged to linger on, but I feel I am not presently in the mood or right frame of mind to be a motivator or all that vigorous in my nationalist beliefs.

In fact, I fear my presence could act as a dampener on getting the Western Spring thing going because of my lack of activity. I would not want that to happen, as it is one of the few remaining things I believe in.

Yes, I do believe in the project, I am actually quite excited by the potential scope of the project and the whole move away from electoral routes.

I do have a vision of how it may work (well, up to a point!) and I do have positive things to say and to suggest like in this article today.

So, just because I am feeling a bit tired and burnt out at the moment, it does not mean to say others need to give up. I have not given up, but I may have to drop back for a while.

Just feel for the poor sods in nationalist politics after the elections, now that is likely to be demoralising and depressing for them!

The good news about that is that we may find some fellow travellers among them that may have a good rethink about what they are doing and start to think positively about moving away from politics and trying activities of the sort being put forward by Western Spring.

I hope this article has been somewhat explanatory of my opinions about some of the issues with Western Spring (and my own shortfalls), and I look forward to any comments that are constructive!

Monday, 21 April 2014

It has been a while since I put an article up, but as I was getting fed up with the last entry being the one that was stuck at the front of the site I thought I should do something about it. It is very stale information and felt I should stick something else there for a change!

I wrote the following for a comment to be posted elsewhere. It is relating to a suggestion that we need to be putting more material out there as part of our propaganda drive - and that putting more material out is more important than some other things, because it helps fuel action and funding.

I have decided to put it here instead because (to be fair to the person suggesting it) I have gone much more "general" in my position than what he or she may have been actually talking about. In addition, it may go some way to explain why I am not doing so much writing these days for the blog here.

Anyway, here it goes. (Sensible comments are of course welcome).

The cynic in me has come to think that, if anything, there is perhaps too much information out there.

So much information in fact, that is becoming a bit of a distraction for us all to be keeping up with all the sites, the news and the issues; and fooling ourselves that by reading and contributing comments to such sites that we are somehow helping to get something done.

All it may get done is to keep our existing movement engaged with each other and to keep an interest up among ourselves by being bedded into this endless loop.

That is important - but I would tend to be cynical at how much of this churn of articles and issues actually gets read outside of our own little world bubble - and when new people do come along to try and learn about what is going on, I often wonder what they think about some sites and some of the rhetoric being used. Is our "shop window" conducive to want people to buy our product? Do they understand what is on sale from these snapshots?

There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of blog sites, forums, political party sites, etc pushing out various nationalistic messages across the spectrum between your counter-jihad sites to 'white nationalism' sites to your more hardcore national socialism.

We will never match the machinery and power of the mainstream media, for not only are they better funded and allowed free reign to peddle what they like - they also capture the masses by default whereas we have to try and drive people our way, otherwise they will never even look in our direction.

On that score, it is not so much a lack of propaganda material, but a lack of drawing people in comfortably to view it.

We have many well populated and viewed sites like American Renaissance, Counter Currents, Occidental Observer, Alternative Right, Radix, Taki Magazine, VDare, Western Spring, The New Observer, The British Resistance, Majority Rights, Occidental Quarterly, The Voice of Reason, and according to various tastes, The Daily Stormer, Stormfront, Gates of Vienna, Frontpage and so on.

Then there is the British National Party, the British Democratic Party, the National Front, the Traditional Britain Group, hundreds of personal blogs (with next to no readership participation apparent), facebook groups, as well as archived material like a load of old Spearhead articles from the National Front heydays, many books available to purchase and so on.

When it comes to our situation and our positions, I tend to think that amongst all this lot, everything that needs to be said has already been said. It is all there, somewhere.

What is the purpose of endlessly regurgitating the same things over and over again, telling ourselves what we already know? I get tired of reading the same rhetoric all the time, laced with all the usual stab words of 'cultural marxist' and 'traitor'. I can't be bothered with it any more, so I would not expect my own readership here to have to suffer the same.

Considering how few of the wider population actually embroil themselves in our sites (compared to the already semi-aware, winnable and converted I mentioned earlier), I do wonder at times what the point is of pumping out all this stuff.

It is perhaps reassuring to be amongst like minded folk and no doubt it is cathartic to blow off some steam by making a sharp comment - and as I say, it does help to keep people 'in the fold' - but perhaps the time needs to come for quality and purpose over that of a mindless churn and what amounts to just one long moan about what is going on and what is being done to us.

We need purpose to the articles, purpose to the sites. We need to shatter the narratives of our opponents, provide people with the right tools to de-construct common arguments made against us. We need informative articles about what we are aiming for, why we are doing it, why people ought to join us and what we are actually doing about it.

Endlessly describing what is being done week in, week out - and thus angrily citing case after case of affronts to our nation (which fills so many sites) is perhaps not such a good use of our time and efforts. It is also hugely demoralising as well as being passive, as we generally wait for the next batch of woe and outrage to hit us for us to then read or write about.

I am alone in this view? Am I just battle worn and cynical? Like many sites like this, is there anybody out there at all?!!

You see, I think it would prove my point that this article is again the fodder for the already converted, that it says little about our situation, that the site is not well read, that volume of material is therefore not that important, that your average citizen is not going to be pouring over it or understanding what it is all about.....

On the other hand - do all the above kinds of sites help push our cause forward? Is the volume and tide of it all part of the push-back? Do we need to write more material, more often, no matter what it is?

Friday, 3 January 2014

I see that there's a fair bit of news today on the nationalist circuit about the bankruptcy of Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party. I had intended the following thoughts to be a comment to another site discussing this matter, but as ever, it grew a bit too long, so I have put it here instead.

I can't say I take all that much pleasure from seeing what I assume will be the further fall of a nationalistic party political force. One that most of us here, at one point or another, will have been a part of and will have had hopes for.

Yet of course, like many others, on the whole, I am otherwise rather cold to it now and even of the opinion that it may need to be put out of its misery (or adapt) rather than left to limp on - something which Mr Griffin may once again succeed in doing.

After all, the bankruptcy of Mr Griffin is not the same thing as that of the party itself.

It is however, not all that unexpected, given what has been going on over the last few years and given that things were heading that way with reports of bailiffs and such in the advent of the ROMAC situation (and various other antics).

It was these disturbing antics which went on a few years ago (too numerous to mention, too farcical to not be a comic and probably too disgusting for newer BNP supporters to ever believe) that drove away so many good people.

The thought that so many would leave (with some estimating 80% of the old membership) would have been incomprehensible shortly prior to the collapse of faith - when the party was on a popular high and on the verge of entering a much bigger league.

This walk-out was because we were not talking about a couple of minor things which could still be brushed under the carpet and ignored "for the greater good" (like they had been before with various things).

No, it was scandalous to such a degree that most people with any integrity and insight into what had been going on could just not bring themselves to have allegiance with it any more.

Well, I will rephrase that. I mean it became a matter of conscience and a matter of whether one was capable and willing to excuse it all in the hope that things would once again become good in the future. Some chose to battle on regardless because they, perhaps rightly, continued to see it as the main and most well known nationalist entity in the country.

I could understand that and appreciate that, but I did personally not share the ability to forgive and forget and to continue to put my faith in the kinds of ways things were being done. I did not take the decision lightly, in fact it was quite difficult for me to come to terms with the end of an era.

In some cases it reached the point where people who once championed Mr Griffin could no longer even stand the sight and sound of him (and those he kept close around him).

A local meeting I attended at the time things were going haywire had brochures everywhere that had pictures of Nick Griffin (in various fake poses) on almost every page. It had become far too sycophantic and thus hard to stomach to many in the party.

We had also been shown why the British National Party would never escape the little pool to dive into the bigger pool required of it. It was at the limit of current capacity - and could not be carried forward whilst operating in the same manner it had been, especially when good people were being forced out of the party whilst liabilities were routinely and mysteriously being kept on, including people who were not even members and were running rival parties!

I suppose that the crushing and heavily demoralising defeat in Barking and Dagenham was the main straw that broke many a camels' back though, particularly amongst those not privy to what had been going on internally - simply because it was was so crushing of our hopes and efforts. To watch the whole lot slide away like that was pretty uncomfortable.

However, unlike many other issues that were driving people away, I do not believe that the results in Barking and Dagenham can be wholly pinned upon the British National Party and Nick Griffin in particular. On this, it was outside the control of Nick and the BNP - and outside the control of nationalist party politics.

This is because it was revealed on the 2011 Census that Labour had effectively gerrymandered or conditioned the demographics there - to the degree where Barking and Dagenham lost around 20% of the White voter base in a decade!

However, it was (in the end) just part of a combination of internal and external factors that made it ever less viable to continue supporting the very model upon which it was all based and, by extension of supporting the party and the leadership, what had been going on at their hands.

Calls were of course made for a refreshing and renewal of the British National Party, but once again, various underhand deeds were set up to scupper these hopes and desires.

What should have further modernised the party, allowed further delegation away from a "one man party" and what should have given us some necessary purges of liabilities, was denied to us. We can still see the same old antics and same old cliques carry on what is left of the party we knew, in the same old ways.

In general though it was (or should have been) becoming clear that the model of party politics was becoming infeasible. It was being shown to be weak due to the fickle audience it may have temporarily accrued - whilst simultaneously being subject to the influences of outside factors beyond our control (and what will always be outside of our control).

What Labour did (along with their supporting entities) also showed many of us that we do not really live in a democracy - and that even if we did, to win futile seats that cannot be maintained (or sustained with guarantee) is very likely going to be a waste of everybody's time and effort.

It is also depressing and demoralising to have to keep building things from scratch on this basis only to keep securing the same kinds of marginal percentages in the election results.

How many of us would still be prepared to keep being a part of this process? How many are going to take up leafleting hostile wards, standing in seats that cannot realistically be won? How many are doing nothing for the whole year (or years) in between these election pushes?

The whole idea was looking a farce, particularly expectations of achieving the relevant gains required to implement our objectives for this country (in the time we have left as a majority population).

Despite being buoyed with an influx of new working class "patriots", the resulting slow decline of the British National Party has led to a quite a severe collapse in the old guard of nationalism over the last few years and as I say, I think it has been pretty painful to witness.

Many of us have since become politically homeless and desperate for something to come along that suited us, or for something that was viable to get something real changed out there. However, we are now where we are - and those things cannot be undone. Those opportunities cannot be taken again.

On the positive side, it is precisely this process of collapse and disillusionment that has given us the rise of new opportunities - and new opportunities to have a re-think about our models, approaches, routes.

Perhaps this wobble was just what was needed to really jolt us out of blind faith (or just sheer blindness) as to be throwing everything into one route - a route which was enveloped by the British National Party and Nick Griffin (as the two were and currently are unfortunately seen as one and the same thing to many people).

This time for reassessment is where Western Spring has come into the picture - set amongst a whole raft of British National Party clones, various (failed) "cultural nationalist" parties, ideas such as petitioning groups, various counter-jihad / cultural marxist entities.....and all sorts of weird and wacky throwbacks to the 1930s that most people in this country would find hard to take seriously.

Western Springs' recent article about the bankruptcy of Nick Griffin is quite scornful and playfully antagonistic towards the British Democratic Party too.

However, I am not going to be quite as scornful of the British Democratic Party.

I can understand why some people may have a problem with their policies/positions on homosexuality and why they will be frustrated at their lack of "telling the full truth" (because of their chosen model of approach within party politics), but that is not enough for me to launch into attacks, smears or other dismissive hostilities.

This is because I look at it for what it is trying to be: A clean cut and respectable ethno-nationalist political party that retains a vast bulk of genuine nationalist policies and positions.

That is the model they have chosen, and on that basis, despite me not being a member and having no real allegiance forcing me to say this, I think it has the basis of being one of the best nationalist parties and 'political party' vehicles out there at the present time.

The people in it and around it seem like decent people, intelligent people and articulate people. The founding videos and videos of their meetings were in my view excellent and a step above the ones I had been used to in the British National Party.

On this basis, I would not expect to see the kinds of antics going on within it that disgusted so many of us with Mr Griffin and the British National Party either.

I think that the website is good for their purposes. The articles are generally good, the policies are good, the constitution and internal procedures sound to be much better than the British National Party - and as such I think it gives a good impression and overview of what bread and butter nationalist "political" policies and positions are.

It fulfils the purpose of the model they are using. It is informative and explanatory, whether it be energy, self reliance, identity, immigration, transport, etc, as well as the thorny issue of race. It is therefore somewhere I could redirect friends and family to, if need be, to give further impressions and explanations of what kind of things I stand up for.

I do not therefore like to think of them and their followers as being "the other" or some kind of opposition. If one still believed in party politics, it is perhaps the party that many of us would have wanted to appear for years. What they are like in reality and "on the ground", I do not know, for have not got myself involved.

Yet this is where the praise for the BDP ends. You see, like Max Musson over at Western Spring, I have no faith in the democratic 'party politics' route any more. I have no faith in the model of operation. I have no hope for the fruition and sustainment of their activities.

To my knowledge, there is nothing really all that wrong with the people, the policies, etc within the party, it is just the kind of vehicle they are clinging blindly to that keeps me from being interested.

I am also aware that some of the people have not exactly been flattering of Western Spring and are perhaps the reasons as to why Max is a little hostile when he alludes that they are not interested in any sort of unifying efforts and why he suggests they have no imagination or perceptiveness.

That kind of blanket stubbornness is never helpful, particularly when the British Democratic Party make no efforts to set out why they believe their 40+ year proven failed model can win this time, or why the excellent proposals set out by Western Spring are not correct and not worth trying.

It is that inability to pierce the logic of Western Spring that disappoints me and that they cannot even seem to explain why, for example, there would be any point going through the whole rigmarole and footwork of standing a candidate in wards like mine (which they already have done against the British National Party candidate!).

My ward is part a slowly transforming area of town. Whites are on the decline, Pakistanis are moving in. Most other wards making up the town are now around half (or majority) Pakistani origin too. The council chamber is pretty much dominated with Pakistani councillors, whether they be Labour, Lib Dems or Conservative. If not them, then delusional white liberals.

The British Democratic Party - or any nationalist party - simply cannot retain the area, they cannot ever control the council, they just seem to be leafleting and going through the motions of trying to win a "winnable" seat here; one which has shown a decent BNP turnout in the past.

What though, is this going to achieve? Where do they go from there? What is the next step for the area? Can they prevent the White flight and naturally occurring elderly decline of the locals? It is the same thing magnified for elsewhere, regions, pockets of the nation. There is no master plan, just the same old plodding away in the hope that a better party without Nick Griffin will race to success.

So, I see no answers to any of this. Nor to the kinds of situations we saw at Barking and Dagenham. They are, to me, therefore trying to build a solid political house of cards upon quicksand. Sands shift and the winds of change will doubly tend to blow it over and so it collapses all over again.

We cannot carry on doing this over and over. This is what Western Spring aims to tackle.

When one considers the (albeit Herculean) proposals and tactics linked to by Max Musson at the bottom of his article (linked to above), carrying on with the same blind hope in party political models and strategies seems somewhat of a cruel joke. One that you want other people to avert being the unwitting butt of.

This is perhaps why it frustrates Max so much that the good folks over at the British Democratic Party cannot see the benefits of his approaches and, thus far, to my knowledge, cannot seriously challenge those articles beyond that of the usual cynicism and wafer thin (or off-the-cuff) disregarding.

However, I can appreciate the doubts of a commenter there. He asks as to whether there is actually anything going on with Western Spring, or whether it is all hopes, dreams and talk. I think a lot of people will be thinking this way - and I include myself at times. Western Spring is wide open to that accusation.

I suspect that Western Spring has a fair wedge of members now who are contributing financially and perhaps in other ways to the "movement of national salvation" - but it is still, after a year of my signing up, pretty much a black hole when it comes to being privy to visible and provable successes that are going on, information as to what is being achieved or planned next, or how much money has been raised to date and so on.

Whilst I still have faith and trust in Max Musson (and the wider Western Spring venture) and whilst I still see it as far superior and better thought out than 'party politics' - there will come a point where people will need to see some kind of hard evidence if they are going to continue throwing funds and such into the pot.

Myself, I am that sick and weary of it all (nationalism) that I have no enthusiasm or will to roll my sleeves up right now and make a nuisance of myself with Western Spring. There is something in me, at nearly 36 years of age, urging me to crack on with the rest of my life, establish a family and so on, instead of fretting about it all.

Rightly or wrongly, that noise is the loudest in my ear when considering the state of play out there in the country today. Doing that, in fact, may be the best contribution I could make to the cause! But, for the moment, I am still in the fortunate position of being able to help the cause via Western Spring through my monthly funding.

That is (sadly) the extent of my contribution at the moment and for the foreseeable future.

I am not one to be phoning around and demanding to know what is being done and where, so I have no intentions of chasing Max Musson around and making a nuisance of myself to gain 'evidence' of what may be being said in response to criticisms - especially when I am not of the mind (at the moment) to get something established myself.

I also appreciate the caution that has to be taken when revealing information and specifics, but I do think that all the contributors need some indications via the Western Spring site (and not unverifiable emails) as to how things are developing and what is currently being worked on.

Have we bought buildings, houses? Have we got any significant backers? Has anybody managed to infiltrate the areas suggested in the programme.....

Up to press, the wider readership and membership have nothing much other than a website.

I fear that without some indications of progress being given, people may lose faith and trust in the project and that, perhaps like myself, will in turn be at risk of packing it in and walking away from everything. I could not blame them, but I would rather it did not happen.

Friday, 27 December 2013

Something a little different for the Yuletide season, although not particularly related to Christmas. A tale of the fall of England and the following rebirth. Not a bad prophesy considering it is nearly 144 years old, especially the parts I have chosen to embolden. (Hat tip to Unrepentant British Nationalist, circa 2008).

The Fox's Prophecy

(Attributed to D. W. Nash - 1870)

Tom Hill was in the saddle,
One bright November morn,
The echoing glades of Guiting Wood
Were ringing with his horn.

The diamonds of the hoar-frost
Were sparkling in the sun.
Upon the falling leaves the drops
Were shining one by one.

The hare lay on the fallow,
The robin carolled free;
The linnet and yellow finch
Twittered from tree to tree.

In stately march the sable rook
Followed the clanking plough;
Apart their watchful sentinel
Cawed from the topmost bough.

Peeped from her hole the field-mouse
Amid the fallen leaves.
From twig to twig the spider
Her filmy cable weaves.

The waving of the pine boughs
The squirrel's form disclose;
And through the purple beech-tops
The whirring pheasant rose.

The startled rabbit scuttered
Across the grassy ride;
High in mid-air the hovering hawk
Wheeled round in circles wide.

The freshest wind was blowing
O'er groves of beech and oak
And through the boughs of larch and pine
The struggling sunbeam broke.

The varied tints of autumn
Still lingered on the wood,
And on the leaves the morning sun
Poured out a golden flood.

Soft, fleecy clouds were sailing
Across the vault of blue.
A fairer hunting morning
No huntsman ever knew.

All nature seemed rejoicing
That glorious morn to see;
All seemed to breathe a fresher life -
Beast, insect, bird and tree.

But sound and sight of beauty
Fell dull on eye and ear;
The huntsman's heart was heavy
His brow oppressed with care.

High in his stirrups raised he stood,
And long he gazed around;
And breathlessly and anxiously
His listened for a sound.

But nought he heard save the song bird
Or jay's discordant cry;
Or when among the the tree-tops
The wind went murmuring by.

No voice of hound, no sound of horn
The woods around were mute,
As though the earth had swallowed up
His comrades - man and brute.

He thought, "I must essay to find
My hounds at any cost;
A huntsman who has lost his hounds
Is but a huntsman lost".

Then round he turned his horse's head
And shook his bridle free,
When he was struck by an aged fox
That sat beneath a tree.

He raised his eye in glad surprise,
That huntsman keen and bold;
But there was in that fox's look
That made his blood run cold.

He raised his hand to touch his horn,
And shout a "Tally-ho"
But mastered by that fox's eye,
His lips refused to blow.

For he was grim and gaunt of limb,
With age all silvered o'er;
He might have been an arctic fox
Escaped from Greenland's shore.

But age his vigour had not tamed,
Nor dimm'd his sparkling eye,
Which shone with an unearthly fire -
Fire that could never die.

And thus the huntsman he addressed,
In tones distinct and clear,
Who heard as they who in a dream
The fairies' music hear.

"Huntsman" he said - a sudden thrill
Through all the listeners ran,
To hear a creature of the wood
Speak like a Christian man -

"Last of my race, to me' tis given
The future to unfold,
To speak the words which never yet
Spake fox of mortal mould.

"Then print my words upon your heart
And stamp them on your brain,
That you to others may impart
My prophecy again.

"Strong life is your's in manhood's prime,
Your cheek with heat is red;
Time has not laid his finger yet
In earnest on your head.

"But ere your limbs are bent with age,
And ere yours locks are grey,
The sport that you have loved so well
Shall long have passed away.